"The filing cabinet contributed to the rise of a popular nontechnical understanding of information as something discrete and specific. Critically, it illustrates the moment in which information gained an identity separate from knowledge, an instrumental identity critical to its accessibility. In its separation from knowledge, information was granted authority based on a set of ideas and practices that limited interpretation; in contrast, a subject, someone who 'knows' underwrites the authority of knowledge. In turn this moment in the genealogy of information is tied to broader social and economic forces that made efficiency — 'saving time' — one of the defining problems of modern life. In this historical period, filing technology provided a conceptual gateway for understanding information as a thing that could be standardized, atomized, and stripped of context — information as a universal and impersonal quantity. While this conception did not begin or end with the filing cabinet, the file became a common way of making this information comprehensible, as it continues to do in the present with the information and data encountered through digital technology."
"The best response to manipulative and persuasive choice architecture might therefore be to empower users to become choice architects of their own proximate digital environment (self-nudging) or self-restrict engagement with certain information sources (deliberate ignorance) rather than attempt to exercise a superhuman ability to detect and resist all attempts at influence. By contrast, false information and AI-powered persuasive techniques such as targeted political advertisement can best be met by people exercising existing competencies (e.g., reasoning and judgment of information reliability) or learning new ones (e.g., lateral reading).
The idea that deliberate ignorance can be an ecologically rational strategy does not align with classical ideals of epistemic virtue and rationality (see Kozyreva & Hertwig, 2019), which presume that information and knowledge have intrinsic value for decision makers because they allow them to accumulate more evidence (e.g., Carnap, 1947), acquire better understanding, and ultimately make more informed and rational choices (e.g., Blackwell, 1953; Good, 1967). However, deliberate ignorance is a reasonable strategy in many situations—for instance, in the interest of impartiality and to shield oneself from biases (e.g., see MacCoun, 2020)."
Anastasia Kozyreva, Stephan Lewandowsky, & Ralph Hertwig (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1529100620946707)
"A considerable body of research evidence attests that the main function of stereotypes is to preserve cognitive resources (e.g., Bodenhausen & Lichtestein, 1987; Macrae et al., 1994b; Stangor & Duan, 1991). As capacity-saving devices, then, stereotypes are likely to be used when the perceivers are in short supply of cognitive resources, are under time pressure, or lack motivation to make a thoughtful and accurate judgment (e.g., Bargh & Pratto, 1991; Gilbert & Hixon, 1991; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Macrae, Stangor, & Milne, 1994c)."
~ Tadesse Araya (http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-3340)
"Even if he had the most diverse network of friends and the largest group of friends, we still might fail to understand the broader social environment if we are using inadequate rules to make decisions. If we are very focused on the advice of a particular friend, or if you're following a particular leader… I mean, in today's world where we have access to all kinds of information, we can be everyone's friend and learn from anyone. We do tend to still use rules to integrate social information that exclude other parts of this social network.
We follow our leaders. We follow people with trust. We follow our spouse. And so we don't profit from all the diversity around us.
When the problem is actually much more complex, then this 'following the one who has the currently best solution' can backfire because the whole group, the whole society, can get stuck in what we call a local optimum, or in a solution that seems all right, but actually in the long run it could have been much more improved if we were more open to other ideas.
So there is an interaction between the rule that we are using to make decisions and the networks, like how many different diverse opinions are in our network, and the problem we are solving."
~ Mirta Galesic (https://complexity.simplecast.com/episodes/9)